,

THE THIRD DEPT EXERCISED ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION AND VACATED DEFENDANT’S PLEA BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant was not adequately informed of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty:

Defendant contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because County Court failed to advise him of the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Although defendant failed to preserve this contention for our review through an appropriate postallocution motion … , we nonetheless exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action and reverse the judgment … . …

… [D]uring the abbreviated plea colloquy, County Court briefly advised defendant that, if he were to plead guilty, he would be giving up his “right to a trial, . . . the right to testify at that trial, to call witnesses and to cross-examine the People’s witnesses.” Significantly, County Court did not advise defendant that he had a right to a jury trial or that he would be waiving the privilege against self-incrimination by entering a guilty plea … . Further, the court failed to obtain any assurance that defendant had discussed with counsel the trial-related rights that are automatically forfeited by pleading guilty or the constitutional implications of a guilty plea … .

From the dissent:

… .[W]e do not think that the unpreserved error cited by the majority, standing alone, necessitates this Court exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction to reverse the judgment of conviction as there is nothing compelling about this case that “cries out for fundamental justice beyond the confines of conventional considerations” … . People v Demkovich, 2019 NY Slip Op 00326, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

,

THIRD DEPT DECLINED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS SHE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, declined to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to review whether defendant was adequately informed of the rights she was giving up by pleading guilty:

… [W]e find that this is not a proper matter for the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Defendant has a lengthy criminal history and admitted at the time of the plea that she was guilty of possessing heroin with the intent to sell it. Defendant was represented by counsel and entered into a plea agreement with a favorable sentence. Although defendant later filed a motion to withdraw her plea, she elected to withdraw the motion after being granted an adjournment and conferring with counsel. Significantly, defendant has since served her negotiated sentence and been released from custody; however, if this conviction is reversed, defendant once again faces prosecution for the original charge, which, if convicted, carries a greater sentencing range … . …

From the dissent:

Our review of the plea colloquy reveals that County Court engaged in an extremely limited exchange with defendant, advising her only that, by pleading guilty, she would forever relinquish her “right to go to trial, the right to testify, to call witnesses, [and to] cross-examine the People’s witness[es].” Critically, there was no discussion of the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to be tried by a jury or whether defendant had conferred with counsel and understood the constitutional rights that she was automatically waiving by pleading guilty … . People v Glover, 2019 NY Slip Op 00325, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL ORDER AND GRANTED FATHER’S OBJECTIONS, FATHER’S ARGUMENT THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SPEND TIME AWAY FROM WORK TO LITIGATE THE MATTER DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IRREPARABLE HARM NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A REVIEW OF A NONFINAL ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that father’s objections to the support magistrate’s nonfinal order should have been denied and explained the relevant criteria:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439(e), “[s]pecific, written objections to a final order of a support magistrate may be filed by either party with the court within thirty days after receipt of the order.” “[O]bjections from nonfinal orders made by a Support Magistrate are typically not reviewed unless they could lead to irreparable harm” … . Here, the father’s claim that he would be forced to incur attorney fees and spend time away from work litigating a case that would ultimately be dismissed does not rise to the level of irreparable harm  … . Therefore, the Family Court should have denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s nonfinal order. Matter of Tobing v May, 2019 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

AWARDING FATHER SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY DID NOT HAVE A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that awarding sole legal custody to father did not have a sound and substantial basis in the record and mother’s petition for sole legal custody should have been granted:

“Findings of the Family Court which have a sound and substantial basis in the record are generally entitled to great deference on appeal because any custody determination depends to a great extent on the court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties”… . “However, an appellate court would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a trial judge, it allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .

Here, the Family Court’s determination awarding the father sole legal and physical custody of the child does not have a sound and substantial basis in the record. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the parties had not been sharing custody of the child equally. Instead, the record reflects that the mother had been the child’s primary caregiver for the majority of his life until the court granted the father’s petition and that, at the time of the hearing, the father had the child on certain weekends. The evidence in the record also demonstrates that the court failed to take into consideration the custody arrangement in place at the time of the hearing, or even the 50/50 arrangement which was requested by the father during the proceeding.

Moreover, the record demonstrates that the mother had taken a proactive role in the child’s well being and development, developing well-thought-out plans to address the child’s issues regarding medical care, schooling, and socialization … . At the time of the hearing, the father had no concrete plans for the child’s education, medical care, or social development. Matter of Lintao v Delgado, 2019 NY Slip Op 00125, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER WAIVED HIS PRESENCE AT THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT HEARING, ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, exercising its interest of justice appellate jurisdiction, determined the evidence that defendant waived his presence at the SORA risk assessment hearing was insufficient. A new hearing was ordered:

A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing… . “To establish whether a defendant, by failing to appear at a SORA hearing, has waived the right to be present, evidence must be shown that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his or her absence” … . Reliable hearsay evidence, such as an affidavit, is admissible to establish waiver … . Here, the sole “evidence” that the defendant waived the right to be present was the statement by the court that it was informed off-the-record by the New York City Police Department Sex Offender Monitoring Unit that the defendant resided at an address in Manhattan and that notice of the hearing was sent to that address and not returned as undeliverable. There was no evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that the defendant expressed a desire to forgo his presence at the hearing … . The fact that defense counsel had “no evidence to indicate” that the defendant did not receive notice of the hearing was not sufficient to indicate a waiver. People v Barney, 2019 NY Slip Op 00153, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

BECAUSE THE COURT DID NOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE PLEAS AND SENTENCING COMMITMENTS, THE SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED BASED ON THE PURPORTED VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPELLATE COURT CONSIDERED IT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sentencing court should not have imposed an enhanced sentence (consecutive instead of concurrent) because defendant did not appear at sentencing because the court had not imposed his appearance as a condition for the pleas and sentencing commitments. Although the issue was not preserved, the court considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

The defendant entered pleas of guilty under three separate indictments. He was promised that the sentences imposed would run concurrently. The defendant did not appear in court on the scheduled sentencing date. Subsequently, in rendering the judgments of conviction, the Supreme Court directed, inter alia, the sentence imposed on the second judgment to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the first judgment.  …

… [W]e exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to vacate the sentences. Since the record does not establish that the Supreme Court imposed as a condition on the pleas and sentencing commitments that the defendant return on the scheduled sentencing date, the court should not have imposed enhanced sentences based on the defendant’s violation of this purported condition … . To the extent that the court also based its imposition of enhanced sentences on the defendant having violated certain other purported conditions, it likewise erred, since it had not imposed these conditions on the pleas and sentencing commitments. People v Andre, 2019 NY Slip Op 00136, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

ALLOCUTION CAST DOUBT ABOUT GUILT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the plea allocution was defective in this juvenile delinquency proceeding. The allocution did not support the elements of the charged offense (grand larceny fourth degree if committed by an adult) and the juvenile’s foster care planner was not questioned about the offense, a defect which cannot be waived. Although no motion to withdraw was made, the allocution cast significant doubt about guilt which constitutes an exception to the the preservation requirement for appeal:

The appellant did not move to withdraw his admission on the grounds raised on appeal … . However, this is one of the ” rare case[s] . . . where the [appellant’s] recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the [appellant’s] guilt,’ [which] fall[s] into the narrow exception to the preservation requirement”… . In addition, the appellant was not required to preserve his contention that the Family Court erred in failing to obtain an allocution from the foster care case planner, since the statutory requirement of such an allocution may not be waived … . * * *

The Family Court did not elicit any additional details concerning the incident in order to clarify how the appellant came to be in possession of the $5 such that it could be concluded that he took it from the boy’s person within the meaning of Penal Law § 155.30(5). Thus, the court “did not elicit a sufficient factual basis to support [the appellant’s] admission'” … .

In addition, the appellant’s admission was defective since his foster care case planner was present, but the Family Court failed to ascertain through allocution of the foster care case planner, as a person legally responsible for the appellant’s care, “that (a) [the appellant] committed the act or acts to which he [was] entering an admission, (b) he [was] voluntarily waiving his right to a fact-finding hearing, and (c) he [was] aware of the possible specific dispositional orders” … . Matter of Richard S., 2019 NY Slip Op 00130, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN FOUND IN A VEHICLE, THE COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL, THE SECOND DEPT DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, MATTER SENT BACK SO SUPREME COURT CAN ARTICULATE ITS REASONING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter to Supreme Court for the basis of its ruling on a suppression motion:

This Court is statutorily limited to reviewing errors or defects that “may have adversely affected the appellant” (CPL 470.15[1]), and thus has no power “to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court”… . The Court of Appeals has observed that, once the Appellate Division has rejected a trial court’s ruling on a particular issue, it may not proceed to consider other issues that might provide a basis for affirmance if they were not determined adversely to the appellant… .

Here, the defendant contends that the Supreme Court incorrectly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun, arguing that the inevitable discovery and search incident to a lawful arrest exceptions did not apply. The People contend, as they did before the Supreme Court, that the automobile exception applies. However, the court did not set forth the basis for its denial of the branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the gun. Furthermore, on this record, we cannot determine the unarticulated predicate for the court’s evidentiary ruling …  Therefore, in order to avoid exceeding our statutory authority pursuant to CPL 470.15(1), we hold the appeal in abeyance and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun. People v Thomas, 2018 NY Slip Op 08962, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, ,

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY INDICATING DEFENDANT WAS IDENTIFIED IN A LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A ONE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION CASE, THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reviewing the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined that the detective’s testimony indicated defendant had been identified in a lineup was inadmissible bolstering. The error was reviewed in the interest of justice. In light of the overwhelming evidence, however, the error was deemed harmless:

We conclude that the detective’s testimony that the defendant was arrested “[a]fter the lineup was conducted” could have led the jury to believe that the police were induced to take action as a result of the lineup identification, and therefore constituted improper implicit bolstering of the witness’s identification testimony … .

… “Harmless error analysis proceeds in two stages” … . First, “unless the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming, there is no occasion for consideration of any doctrine of harmless error” … . Second, for a nonconstitutional error to be harmless the appellate court must conclude “that there is [no] significant probability . . . in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred”… .

In analyzing the effect of a bolstering error, the Court of Appeals has stated that “[t]he standard of harmlessness  … is whether the evidence of identity is so strong that there is no substantial issue on the point'”… . In the context of a case involving an identification by a single witness, the Court of Appeals has concluded that a bolstering error was harmless in light of, among other things, the “unusually credit-worthy” nature of the witness’s identification … .

Here, although the only direct evidence connecting the defendant to the commission of the crimes charged was the identification testimony of a single witness, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, was overwhelming … . People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 08954, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, , ,

RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE MAY HAVE MISLED THE JURY TO CONCLUDE THEY COULD MAKE THEIR OWN LAY JUDGMENT, AS OPPOSED TO RELYING ON EXPERT OPINION, ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY IN THIS CIVIL MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING, ISSUE REVIEWED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, over a dissent, reversed the finding that defendant sex offender (Timothy R.) suffers from a mental abnormality and requires civil commitment and ordered a new trial. The jury sent out a note asking whether they must agree with the diagnosis of one of the experts to find defendant has a mental abnormality. The court, over defendant’s counsel’s objection, answered “no.” On appeal defendant argued that the jury was effectively told it could ignore the experts and come to their own judgment on the mental abnormality issue. Although that specific argument was not made below, and therefore was not preserved, the Second Department reviewed it in the interest of justice and held that the jury would have to agree with an expert’s diagnosis to find defendant suffered from a mental abnormality:

… [C]ontrary to the Supreme Court’s response to the jury note, in order to conclude that Timothy R. has a mental abnormality, the jury was required to accept expert testimony as to at least one diagnosis that meets the legal predicate for mental abnormality. When the court answered the note in the negative and reiterated to the jury the general instruction as to accepting or rejecting all or some of an expert’s testimony as it sees fit … , the jury could have been misled into relying solely upon its own lay opinion or so much of the expert testimony as relied upon nonpredicate diagnoses, without regard to the expert testimony, that Timothy R. has a congenital or acquired condition, disease, or disorder … . Matter of State of New York v Timothy R., 2018 NY Slip Op 08940, Second Dept 12-26-18